Task status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (status, phase, progress, recent steps), but says nothing about freshness, whether status is terminal, or that `recent` is a truncated step list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that leads with the primary payload (status, phase, progress) and then the secondary one (recent steps). Nothing is wasted, though the back-referenced `recent` field is slightly awkward without the output schema present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape, which is what the agent most needs here. It stops short of covering terminal-state semantics or how recent steps are limited, which matters for a polling-style status tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (taskId), and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate — but it never mentions the parameter. The name taskId is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from scoring lower, but no format or sourcing guidance is added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete verb (get) and resource (task status) and enumerates what comes back: status, phase, one-line progress, and latest steps in `recent`. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like get_task_result or wait_for_task, which are close enough that an agent must guess.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus wait_for_task (blocking) or get_task_result (final output). Since all three concern a task identified by taskId, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap, leaving the agent to infer usage from names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.